oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold) (12/04/85)
In article <29@sbcs.UUCP> mohan@sbcs.UUCP (Chilukuri K. Mohan) writes: > Governors Moved Around > > II. Punjab's governor Arjun Singh has been > inducted into the central cabinet as the commerce > minister. Singh is reportedly rewarded for > his role in negotiating the Punjab accord. > Singh is replaced by Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma, > Governor of Andhra Pradesh. In the preceding bulletin (11/20/85) it was mentioned that Amnesty International singled out the governments of Punjab and Andhra Pradesh for accusations of torture on an administrative basis. Apparently, such accusations do not hurt these gentlemen's careers.
venky@crystal.UUCP (12/05/85)
> In article <29@sbcs.UUCP> mohan@sbcs.UUCP (Chilukuri K. Mohan) writes: > > > Governors Moved Around > > > > II. Punjab's governor Arjun Singh has been > > inducted into the central cabinet as the commerce > > minister. Singh is reportedly rewarded for > > his role in negotiating the Punjab accord. > > Singh is replaced by Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma, > > Governor of Andhra Pradesh. > > In the preceding bulletin (11/20/85) it was mentioned that Amnesty > International singled out the governments of Punjab and Andhra Pradesh > for accusations of torture on an administrative basis. > Apparently, such accusations do not hurt these gentlemen's careers. The role of a governor in Indian states is totally different from that of a governor in US. The chief minister is the administrative head and is responsible for all administrative policies and actions. The governor has very little say, if anything at all, in administration and normally is not affected by the actions of the state government. G.A.Venkatesh venky@crys.wisc.edu
pal@crystal.UUCP (12/05/85)
In article <1228@mit-vax.UUCP> oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold) writes: > In article <29@sbcs.UUCP> mohan@sbcs.UUCP (Chilukuri K. Mohan) writes: > > > Governors Moved Around > > > > II. Punjab's governor Arjun Singh has been > > [........] > > Governor of Andhra Pradesh. > > In the preceding bulletin (11/20/85) it was mentioned that Amnesty > International singled out the governments of Punjab and Andhra Pradesh > for accusations of torture on an administrative basis. > Apparently, such accusations do not hurt these gentlemen's careers. I doubt that the governors had much to do with torture. In India, the post of governor is largely ceremonial (as is the post of president). It is the chief minister who really runs the show, and should be the person to point fingers at. Anil A. Pal U. of Wisconsin Madison <disclaimer>
raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) (12/06/85)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From mohan@sbcs: >> > Governors Moved Around From oaf@mit-vax: >> In a preceding bulletin (11/20/85) it was mentioned that Amnesty >> International singled out the governments of Punjab and Andhra Pradesh >> for accusations of torture on an administrative basis. >> Apparently, such accusations do not hurt these gentlemen's careers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From venky@crystal.UUCP (in response to the above): >The role of a governor in Indian states is totally different from that of a >governor in US. The chief minister is the administrative head and is >responsible for all administrative policies and actions. The governor has very >little say, if anything at all, in administration and normally is not affected >by the actions of the state government. A couple of questions: 1. Is it the implication that the governor shares no responsibility? And that he is, in effect, no more than a figurehead? 2. So forget the governor. Are the careers of the respective chief ministers likely to be affected by the Amnesty indictment? Aw, c'mon :-)
venky@crystal.UUCP (12/06/85)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > From mohan@sbcs: > >> > Governors Moved Around > > From oaf@mit-vax: > >> In a preceding bulletin (11/20/85) it was mentioned that Amnesty > >> International singled out the governments of Punjab and Andhra Pradesh > >> for accusations of torture on an administrative basis. > >> Apparently, such accusations do not hurt these gentlemen's careers. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From venky@crystal.UUCP (in response to the above): > >The role of a governor in Indian states is totally different from that of a > >governor in US. The chief minister is the administrative head and is > >responsible for all administrative policies and actions. The governor has very > >little say, if anything at all, in administration and normally is not affected > >by the actions of the state government. > > A couple of questions: > > 1. Is it the implication that the governor shares no responsibility? And that > he is, in effect, no more than a figurehead? Yes and yes. > > 2. So forget the governor. Are the careers of the respective chief ministers > likely to be affected by the Amnesty indictment? Aw, c'mon :-) The point is well taken. The careers of the chief ministers will not be affected by the AMNESTY INDICTMENT. But this was irrelevant to the original question. As for the Amnesty indictments I doubt it would affect anyone's career (in India or abroad) unless there was a protest locally. In this case the chief minister MIGHT suffer some political damage. However, even this would not affect the Governor. G.A.Venkatesh venky@crys.wisc.edu
baparao@uscvax.UUCP (Bapa Rao) (12/09/85)
In article <10@crystal.UUCP> venky@crystal.UUCP writes: >> From Oded Feingold: (referring to Arjun Singh and S.D. Sharma) >> In the preceding bulletin (11/20/85) it was mentioned that Amnesty >> International singled out the governments of Punjab and Andhra Pradesh >> for accusations of torture on an administrative basis. >> Apparently, such accusations do not hurt these gentlemen's careers. > >From G.A. Venkatesh >The role of a governor in Indian states is totally different from that of a >governor in US. The chief minister is the administrative head and is >responsible for all administrative policies and actions. The governor has very >little say, if anything at all, in administration and normally is not affected >by the actions of the state government. > True, but wasn't Punjab under President's rule when Arjun Singh was governor? --Bapa Rao.